• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

best bins ? (1 Viewer)

Ragna, I wouldn't sugggest waiting till May to see the new Zeiss FL's just because they're Zeiss, but because they have interesting new design features which could produce real improvements over any of the current roof prism crop.
BTW the reigning fashion in birder neckwear over here is the Swarovski EL. I use them myself, but must confess to being less than totally in love. The Ultravids did not succeed in turning my head so a new infatuation in May might be just the thing.
 
Last edited:
Cubbsy said:
Hold on there Scampo, I only get 3 quid a week pocket money!! so can't afford a fiver, What i was told, was not the reason i ordered these binoculars, I think the reason was... (Selfish, I know) i got a pair of there 8x40's for my 7 year old, and was blown away by how good they were so ordered the 10x waterproof, However, point taken

Take care.
I hadn't thought of them for a youngster - a really good idea for a Christmas present or such like.

Make sure you post to let us know how good they are when they arrive.
 
henry link said:
Ragna, I wouldn't sugggest waiting till May to see the new Zeiss FL's just because they're Zeiss, but because they have interesting new design features which could produce real improvements over any of the current roof prism crop.
BTW the reigning fashion in birder neckwear over here is the Swarovski EL. I use them myself, but must confess to being less than totally in love. The Ultravids did not succeed in turning my head so a new infatuation in May might be just the thing.

Henry: Out of curiosity, what do you not like about them?
 
Leif, My main objection to the EL is brightness or lack of it. I'm sure you've seen the same thing compared to your Nikon 8x32 SE. It's just not possible to achieve state of the art light transmission with Pechan prisms, even with the dielectric mirror coatiings Swarovski and Leica are using now. Pechans will always have one extra reflection compared to porro and two more than Abbe-Koening. Then, of course there is the infamous slow focus. Henry
 
I use leica duovids i think thay have to be one of the best around as thay are three bins in one with a little practise hope that helps.
 
henry link said:
Leif, My main objection to the EL is brightness or lack of it. I'm sure you've seen the same thing compared to your Nikon 8x32 SE. It's just not possible to achieve state of the art light transmission with Pechan prisms, even with the dielectric mirror coatiings Swarovski and Leica are using now. Pechans will always have one extra reflection compared to porro and two more than Abbe-Koening. Then, of course there is the infamous slow focus. Henry
Now - as an arch defender of Nikon, I am a touch confused. Are you saying the Swaro 8.5x42ELs do not produce a bright image?
 
Having changed last year to Leica Duovids I'd have to say that they win out for me. Tried just about everything before going for them - a fantastic 8x binocular for general use and then the extra bit (12x) when you need it.
That said if weight is an issue the new Ultravids are amazing and well worth a look.
 
check the info posted by Henry on the old 7 x 42 Zeiss and the prisms they use on the Old bins versus new bins thread.....I had not been aware of this but always knew there had to be a reason they are soooooo good.
 
I think we are entering Wonderland if we start to believe that the Swaro ELs do not produce a very bright image. That said - the image through my brother's Nikon HG 8x42s continues to impress me every time I look through them.
 
Steve, Actually I think the Swarovskis and the Leica Ultravids are the brightest of the binoculars using Schmitt-Pechan prisms. That type of prism, however, has inherently lower light transmission than porro or Abbe-Koening. It's not chosen for it's optical quality but because it produces the most compact binocular. The Swarovskis probably have light transmission of 85-90%. The brightest binoculars would be 90-95%. Henry
 
scampo said:
I think we are entering Wonderland if we start to believe that the Swaro ELs do not produce a very bright image. That said - the image through my brother's Nikon HG 8x42s continues to impress me every time I look through them.

I've looked through the Zeiss 7x42 several times but never for more than a minute or two. What struck me on each occasion was the incredible brightness of the image. I've always assumed that this was due to the 7x magnification i.e. more light per unit area of exit pupil. Presumably competing Leica and Swarovski 7x glasses show an equal brightness?

As said by others Zeiss full sized binoculars use Abbe Konig prisms which IIRC have the property that each reflecting surface achieves a 100% level of reflection without the need for any mirror coatings. (Abbe-konig prisms and porro-prisms both employ a phenomenon known as total internal reflection.) The net result should be a brighter and more contrasty image. Of course in practice how good the optics actually are depends on the quality of the design and manufacture of all components in the optical system. The early Zeiss 8x42 and 10x42 Victory were said to have a slight loss of contrast that was subsequently rectified by the addition of improved baffles. (The improved versions are marketed in the States as the Victory II.) According to Steve Ingraham they do indeed have excellent sharpness and brightness but not noticeably better than the competition.

Schmidt-pechan prisms, used by Leica, Nikon, Swarovski and others, require coatings on the prisms to achieve a mirrored surface. These coatings were traditionally silver (or even aluminium in cheap binoculars), but these days even more expensive dielectric coatings are becoming popular. These are known under various trade marks such as Swaro-bright in the case of Swarovski and High-Lux in the case of Leica. Like anti-reflection coatings, they are made by depositing in a vacuum many molecule thick layers of metal compounds onto the glass surfaces. Dielectric - or interference - coatings have higher transmissivity and should produce higher apparent brightness and contrast. (The actual increase in brightness is too small to be seen directly.)

Incidentally, all exposed optical surfaces on Leica instruments are protected by a thin very hard layer of silicon dioxide aka quartz! Does anyone know if similar coatings are used by other manufacturers? I remember that someone pointed out that top end kit tends to use anti-reflection multi-coatings that are tougher than those on cheaper kit.

Anyway, back on the ranch, I agree that the image through my Swarovski 8.5x42 does not seem to have quite as much contrast as my Nikon 8x32 SEs. I think Scampo has seen the same thing in comparison with his brother's Nikon 8x42 HG. IMO one characteristic of Swarovski binoculars and scopes is a very slight and subtle drop in contrast compared with e.g. Leica and Nikon.

Phew.
 
Last edited:
henry link said:
Steve, Actually I think the Swarovskis and the Leica Ultravids are the brightest of the binoculars using Schmitt-Pechan prisms. That type of prism, however, has inherently lower light transmission than porro or Abbe-Koening. It's not chosen for it's optical quality but because it produces the most compact binocular. The Swarovskis probably have light transmission of 85-90%. The brightest binoculars would be 90-95%. Henry
I understand - thankls for the information. It's all new to me and very interesting. I suppose, though, that the type of prism counts "all else being equal"; but is the prism the central defining aspect of brightness?
 
Leif said:
Incidentally, all exposed optical surfaces on Leica instruments are protected by a thin very hard layer of silicon dioxide aka quartz! Does anyone know if similar coatings are used by other manufacturers? I remember that someone pointed out that top end kit tends to use anti-reflection multi-coatings that are tougher than those on cheaper kit.

I have claimed something like that, but not based on very hard evidence. That general claim was presented on some online birding site and this is copied from Swarovski advertizing material: "All glass surfaces are multi-coated for maximum light transmission and exterior lenses employ the exclusive Swarodur® coating for durability."
I don't know what this coating is, but technically there could be several coating materials - from quartz to diamond. I doubt that any high-end manufacturer would leave this kind of design/marketing advantage to competitors.

Ilkka
 
Steve, Of course in light transmission it all matters. Glass type, coating quality, the number of glass/air surfaces, baffling, prism type. But at the moment, I think the Schmidt-Pechan prism is probably the weakest link in the high end binoculars that use it. Henry
 
Last edited:
The best binoculars for a particular user are still a compromise of weight, brightness, etc., as none are ideal. Relatively cheap porro binocs for about $100 are quite good, much too heavy for me.
 
iporali said:
... but technically there could be several coating materials - from quartz to diamond. I doubt that any high-end manufacturer would leave this kind of design/marketing advantage to competitors.

Ilkka
Well... quartz is a crystalline form of silica (which is silicon dioxide, or SiO2). Sand is the same molecule and glass is made from molten and cooled sand. Diamond is a crystalline form of carbon (C). Both quartz and diamond exist only by virtue of their physical natures, which would change completely during the lens coating process.

I'm told that lens coatings are based on magnesium (and other metallic) fluorides which, luckily for photographers and birders, vaporise at low temperatures in a vacuum and adhere to any nearby glass surfaces, such as that of a lens. The "thickness" of the coating (a poor word in the circumstances) is far less than the wavelength of light.
 
Last edited:
scampo said:
Well... quartz is a crystalline form of silica (which is silicon dioxide, or SiO2). Sand is the same molecule and glass is made from molten and cooled sand. Diamond is a crystalline form of carbon (C). Both quartz and diamond exist only by virtue of their physical natures, which would change completely during the lens coating process.

I'm told that lens coatings are based on magnesium (and other metallic) fluorides which, luckily for photographers and birders, vaporise at low temperatures in a vacuum and adhere to any nearby glass surfaces, such as that of a lens. The "thickness" of the coating (a poor word in the circumstances) is far less than the wavelength of light.

I got the information about the quartz coatings on Leica optics direct from Leica, Germany, when I asked about eyepiece coatings. About 20 years ago it was all the rage for telescope mirrors to have a thin quartz layer deposited as protection of top of the mirror layer. I presume Leica apply the quartz on top of the anti-reflection coatings.
 
All sounds very odd as quartz is a crystalline mineral composed of silicon dioxide molecules. Once the molecular structure is broken down then it is no longer quartz, as I understand it.

One of the very major problems with mirrors in optical gear must be that they need to be reflective only on their uppermost surface - but most mirroring agents are too soft or reactive to allow this without some protective layer being added. I didn't know, and can't see how, this can be quartz, but maybe it is?
 
Henry.
How many people know or are interested in the different types of roof prism which is the generic name.
The advantage of the Abbe Koenig roof prism against the Pechan / Schmidt is noticeable at dusk and dawn. The difference in daylight is minimal.
 
Last edited:
mak, Thanks for the information. The exact percentage difference is something I had not been able to track down. Can you tell me if this difference refers to silver or aluminum coating and how many reflecting surfaces of a Schmidt-Pechan require mirror coating? Henry
 
Warning! This thread is more than 20 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top